Comments (20)

AgentBallSack

Boris Piscina

Yeah, this time. Bit late for the lady in question and her family. Why not last time? Why did the Judge ignore the warnings of professionals? Why are the offender’s rights given primacy? Yes so maybe he does deserve a chance at rehabilitation, but not at the expense of anyone else’s safety. Lock him up and rehabilitate him on the inside. If that can be done, let him out afterwards. If it can’t, then don’t let him out.

Yet another innocent person is dead because politicians don’t have any balls and Judges don’t have any brains.

peterwn

‘Put him in a cell with Graeme Burton.’
The United Nations would deem that a cruel and unusual punishment.

The one area the judge erred with sentencing was the 10 years minimum on the Preventive Detention for the rape. If Preventive Detention did not apply, the maximum penalty for rape is 20 years, and the judge would have no difficulty justifying a 20 year sentence. He could have set a minimum of two-thirds ie 13 and something years. So he should have applied this as the PD minimum. This aspect would become important in the unlikely event he succeeded in having the murder but not the rape conviction overturned.

This case does show that the Preventive Detention law needs a tweak. The Appeal Judges have set the barrier higher than Parliament intended. This is why he did not get preventive detention in 2006 – the judge was abiding by relevant Court of Appeal decisions as he was required to do. If he did hand down a PD sentence it would have been overturned on appeal. Parliament needs to send a message to the judiciary that the barrier be set lower. Possibly as an offset a person serving Preventive Detention can apply to the Parole Board (or High Court) to be completely released from the sentence with a very standard set for this. As things stand, preventive detention, like life imprisonment lasts for life – the offender can be recalled to prison at any time during his or her life.

David Garrett

peterwn has it right…if the Judge had given this POS PD in 2006 it would almost certainly have been overturned on appeal…mainly because of his age, and because of those in positions of power who believe everyone is capable of rehabilitation.

The main reason this is the case is that, as a society, the concept of “evil” is so unfashionable, especially among the well educated. We – or at least they – refuse to believe that some people are just plain evil, and beyond rehabilitation at 15 let alone at 25. This guy is one such – he was a violent psychopath when he was born, he was still one when he committed the Tauranga offences, he remains one now, and he will still be a dangerous psychopath when he is 70.

Interestingly – unless he has changed his view – one of the forensic psychiatrists on the Parole Board, Dr Philip Brinded, both understands the concept of evil, and how it can be present in the absence of mental illness. I used a quote from Brinded in my 1999 book on capital punishment: “Exactly how evil can a person be without being mentally ill? The answer is VERY”

Justice Brewer has courageously given Robertson a Minimum NPP of 24 years- one of the longest in New Zealand – and one which may well be overturned by the Court of Appeal. Brewer clearly doesn’t care about that. Good on that man.

Tarquin North

What gets to me is apparently he is going to appeal. I can’t imagine on what grounds, he seems to have been in denial ever since he was charged. I don’t know the cost of said appeal but I imagine the tax payer will be footing the bill. You have to wonder what kind of lawyer will act for him.

It’s hard to create sentencing guidelines that allow discretion but still require left wing judges to hand out sentences that are long enough to keep people safe. I think the easier place to fix this is when judges are appointed to the Court of Appeal. The government’s choices should be scrutinized much more closely to make sure that ‘warm milk and cookies’ judges never get those jobs.

David Garrett

Tarquin: I can confirm that he is on legal aid – including for the inevitable appeal.

The guy acting for him – during the periods when Robertson hasn’t fired him – is a personal friend of mine, and a good guy. He is a former Crown Prosecutor from New Plymouth, and under no illusions about the nature of the people he represents. Why does he do it? There are two answers, mine: “fucked if I know; I sure as hell couldn’t” and “Our justice system demands that everyone have a competent defence, and Chris believes in the sanctity of that system.”

It is as well to note that his is the answer most respected by the profession and “the system”; my answer prompts eye rolling and mutterings about how I don’t understand the proper role of a criminal lawyer, and conjecture about how I managed to get a law degree with honours.

Nigel K: Good luck in finding judicial appointments who are NOT “warm milk and cookies” kind of guys, and are also acceptable to the legal establishment.

Tarquin North

I know what you mean David, and totally agree with what you say. It’s just that when you see scum like this you have to wonder if there isn’t a better way. I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty but there are times when it seems appropriate.

David Garrett

Tarquin: the death penalty is entirely appropriate for Robertson and his ilk…but firstly it’s never going to happen, secondly if it did, we would have endless hung juries and perverse verdicts, because we have as a society become far too soft…but lastly, unfortunately, the cops no longer inspire the “always get it right without planting evidence” confidence they once did.

AA Thomas is far from the only clearly wrongful conviction in the last 50 years or so…( and I am NOT counting Bain..)

Left Right and Centre

Alan Wilkinson

The lack of a death penalty is the price we pay for the ability to rectify judicial error. And the lack of absolute certainty when convicting those who might justify a death penalty is the price we pay for protecting society from those who are almost certainly guilty.

David Garrett

Left and Right: Wouldn’t have made any difference…if I was the Judge I would have given him one year short of the maximum for the sexual offending AND Preventive Detention…but Firstly, lawyers like me are not made Judges, and secondly, if by some miracle I had been the beak on that occasion, both sentences would have been overturned on conviction…

And that will continue to be the case while we appoint Judges who have been to naice private schools with naice people like themselves…then worked for some prestigious firm, and greased up the right people among their own peer group…

One of the many things I planned to do in politics was look at the pros and cons of elected Judges…Are there any American readers here who have some in depth knowledge of how well such systems work in practice?

Inandout

Good luck in finding judicial appointments who are NOT “warm milk and cookies” kind of guys, and are also acceptable to the legal establishment.

The government makes the appointments and they care about public opinion more than they care about keeping the legal establishment happy. And public opinion is squarely in favour of longer sentences. The problem is that a Court of Appeal vacancy and the sort of person who fills it are not scrutinized that closely by the media so the government are not held to account for their choice.

David Garrett

kowtow

“The lack of a death penalty is the price we pay for the ability to rectify judicial error. And the lack of absolute certainty when convicting those who might justify a death penalty is the price we pay for protecting society from those who are almost certainly guilty.”

So why were “we” letting them out after only 10 years inside? The pendulum swung too far ,when we stopped letting the bastards swing.

First they promised whole life sentences, then it became 30 and by the late ’90s as I said 10 years for murder. What a fucking joke our ‘justice” system became at the hands of all those mealy mouthed crim huggers and do gooders.

rightoverlabour

Can’t we do some crowd funding and pay some bugger inside to “off” him at the first opportunity. Money well spent I would suggest. “Sorry your honor, he slipped off the balcony…. sort of “dropped”you know…”